abhijitm wrote:Is Trump going nuts? What is the business of meddling between India and Pakistan?

more like, who is advising him to do this??

This has been his theme since his call to Nawaz Sharif. Sometimes I wonder if he is trying to squeeze our balls by blackmailing us on H1 visa... if you want visa you allow me to mediate; if you don't then you will not enter US. Either way it is a win-win for him.

Leave aside whether Haley has been got at by the PRC, Saudi, Pak interests in the deep state of the SD or UN and consider that her statements came on the eve of the visit of Xi to Trump. Is this Xi's way of suggesting that PRC, will rein in the DPRK, if the US solves cashmere to the benefit of Pakistan and the PRC who are seeking to subsume the entire valley into the PRC's pet project of CPEC. Text-book PRC diplomacy of creating problems, and then offering solutions at the expense of India, and which also has the added benefit of placing Pak, PRC and the USA on the side of the equation.Finally can anyone provide examples of where US mediation between a client state of the US and another nation, has resulted in a lasting peace

rgosain wrote:Leave aside whether Haley has been got at by the PRC, Saudi, Pak interests in the deep state of the SD or UN and consider that her statements came on the eve of the visit of Xi to Trump. Is this Xi's way of suggesting that PRC, will rein in the DPRK, if the US solves cashmere to the benefit of Pakistan and the PRC who are seeking to subsume the entire valley into the PRC's pet project of CPEC. Text-book PRC diplomacy of creating problems, and then offering solutions at the expense of India, and which also has the added benefit of placing Pak, PRC and the USA on the side of the equation.Finally can anyone provide examples of where US mediation between a client state of the US and another nation, has resulted in a lasting peace

Only examples that come to mind are Northern Ireland/UK (I consider UK to be a client state of US). Also, Camp David Accords have led to peace between Israel/Egypt, Israel/Jordan -- but all 3 are essentially USA client states.

...Trump’s first China summit may well push the White House off its game in more complicated ways. China occupies a prominent, but loosely defined, place in Trump’s world view. As a candidate, Trump rarely delivered a speech without accusing China of abusing the United States with unfair trade practices and by depressing the value of its currency. “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country,” he told a crowd in Indiana.

... But Trump’s posturing as a candidate on China was always a case of theatre over substance, and his advisers occasionally admitted as much. Sure enough, once he was in office, Trump began acting like a pliable counterpart. He has not put tariffs on imports or branded China as a currency manipulator, as he threatened. When Trump briefly showered attention on Taiwan, which Beijing considers a breakaway province, Xi stonewalled him—and Trump’s resolve liquefied, just as foreign-policy hands in China had predicted it would. When Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, visited Beijing last month, Tillerson even recited Beijing’s chosen phrases about “mutual respect” and “win-win solutions.” Why does that matter? It’s roughly the geostrategic equivalent of trying to haggle over the price of a car in a foreign language that you haven’t mastered.

Beijing did not forget the lesson. In anticipation of the summit, Evan Medeiros, an Asia expert at the Eurasia Group, observed that “many in China believe Trump is a ‘paper tiger’ whose focus on short-term gains can be manipulated.” Having concluded that Trump cannot back up his rhetoric, Xi has little reason to accede to Trump’s demands, which include getting China to put more pressure on North Korea to curb its nuclear program. The visitors from Beijing also know that, at some point, Trump will attempt a splashy display of confrontation. But Beijing is not overly concerned. Let Trump tweet; Xi is playing a longer game.

Having sent Tillerson home from Beijing spouting Communist Party mantras, Xi’s envoys have turned their attention to the representative they really care about: Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. From a Chinese perspective, Kushner’s role in the White House is a clannish arrangement that they know well. Many of Trump’s current courtiers may be gone in a year of two, but the members of his family will remain. For a while, China appeared to be preparing to endear itself to Kushner in a way that only it can: Anbang, a financial conglomerate with close ties to the Party leadership, was nearing a deal that would have unlocked billions of dollars to help Kushner save a troubled investment in a skyscraper on Fifth Avenue. Last week, the Kushner family announced that talks had broken off, for reasons that were not clear. It’s certainly possible that a surge of negative publicity was making one side or the other uncomfortable.

Not in Beijing’s wildest dreams did they imagine a counterpart with Kushner’s characteristics: trusted by the President, overworked, and undertrained. In addition to his China portfolio, Kushner’s assignments include brokering peace in the Middle East and revamping the United States government. His range of responsibility has become a Washington laugh line. (“Gutter clogged? That’s Kushner’s job. Pants chafing you? Kushner’s on it! Dog need a bath? Call Kush!”) China has not assigned a novice to handle the world’s most complex bilateral relationship, but it will not object if America is inclined to do so....

Is Trump really (as advertised) a master of the Art of the Deal?

Or is he a master of convincing literate, well-informed, blue-collar rednecks from the White Bigot Class that he knows the Art of the Deal?

The consequences of his summit with Xi Jinping will go a long way towards revealing the truth of this matter.

One thing for sure; if Trump's short-term focus is leveraged by China into midwifing US policies that question the status of J&K, or otherwise equivocate between India and Pakistan while tacitly acknowledging Chinese hegemony over our region and endorsing CPEC... then we can definitely conclude that Trump has sold out long-term US interests. The negative fallout for India will just be the visible tip of the iceberg towards which Xi has convinced him to steer the ship.

...Making America’s foreign policy great again should mean that apologies, acquiescence, disinterest and passivity are terms that no longer describe or apply to Washington’s leaders. No grandiose final communiqué is needed; a simple statement that the two leaders had a full and frank exchange of views will suffice.

Topping the agenda should be North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program, the most imminent danger to the U.S. and its allies. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis have made clear how seriously they view the prospect of Pyongyang fitting an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead and threatening targets in the U.S. The president must follow up vigorously, or the Chinese may underestimate how strongly the U.S. feels about the North Korean menace.

The only real way to end the North Korean threat is to reunify the peninsula by merging North Korea into the South. China will find that difficult to swallow. But if the Trump administration can demonstrate the many benefits to China flowing from the regional stability and global security that reunification would bring, Beijing should come around.

North Korea has achieved its current nuclear capabilities despite 25 years of American attempts to halt its progress. U.S. options for stopping Kim Jong Un from taking the final step are now severely limited. Moreover, the U.S. and China must bear in mind that whatever North Korea can do, Iran can do immediately thereafter—for the right price. Typical Neocon with his Iran neurosis. Cannot bring himself to admit that whatever North Korea can do, Pakistan could do immediately before, and China could do immediately before that... and America paid the "right price" to ensure that this little supply chain manifested itself. Guys like this will forever put 7 and 2 together to make 72 As Pyongyang inches ever closer to producing deliverable nuclear weapons, the prospect of a pre-emptive U.S. strike against its nuclear infrastructure and launch sites cannot be ruled out.

Beijing has itself threatened to turn the international waters of the South China Sea into a Chinese lake by building bases on disputed rocks and reefs. In the East China Sea, Beijing seeks decisive ways to break through “the first island chain” and into the Pacific. Taiwan is a target; Mr. Xi will repeat the phrase “One China” monotonously in hopes of hypnotizing the Trump team into believing it means what Beijing believes it means, rather than our longstanding interpretation.

The Obama administration’s policy was to call for China, Vietnam, the Philippines and others to resolve their territorial disputes through negotiation. This might have worked had U.S. military forces been sufficiently deployed to support the other claimants and manifest America’s will not to accept Chinese faits accomplis. Instead, Mr. Obama presided over the continuing world-wide decline of our naval capabilities. While Mr. Trump is committed to reversing that decline, it won’t happen overnight. Accordingly, as when Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter, Mr. Trump must display political resolve, buying time until the necessary naval assets are once again at sea. Otherwise, China gets what it wants with cold blue steel, not diplomatic niceties.

China’s threatening military buildup has implications well beyond its bordering seas. Its cyberwarfare program is large and growing. Its anti-ship missiles and other offensive naval weaponry are expressly intended to diminish the U.S.’s ability to project power into the Western Pacific. China’s own naval buildup—its first in 600 years—endangers all its East and Southeast Asian neighbors; its nuclear and ballistic-missile efforts threaten India in unprecedented ways and have major implications for America’s ongoing nuclear-posture review; and its anti-satellite program is aimed squarely at U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities in space.

For eight years, China’s military budget has climbed while America’s has fallen. Communist Party leaders drew the inescapable conclusion that they had a free hand to translate China’s economic successes into military hardware and then to use, or threaten to use, those capabilities to achieve their international objectives. Who would stand in their way? China’s neighbors, from Japan around to India, are incapable of resisting its power without American help. But while Washington has no appetite for conflict, neither should it simply accept Beijing’s adventurism.

President Xi must leave Mar-a-Lago with the firm conclusion that he needs to re-calibrate China’s geopolitical strategy.

The only real way to end the North Korean threat is to reunify the peninsula by merging North Korea into the South. China will find that difficult to swallow. But if the Trump administration can demonstrate the many benefits to China flowing from the regional stability and global security that reunification would bring, Beijing should come around.

Forget Beijing, the South Koreans themselves might find reunification "difficult to swallow". If the NoKo regime falls and the border is opened, millions of poor less-educated north Korean immigrants will flood the South looking for jobs and willing to work for peanuts. I don't think anyone in SoKo is looking forward to that.

To the South Koreans it is a HUGELY emotional issue. Not like how Indians regard TSP, and even there you'll find that many yearn for reunification (if we could persuade the TFTA to emigrate to Arabia..)

UlanBatori wrote:To the South Koreans it is a HUGELY emotional issue. Not like how Indians regard TSP, and even there you'll find that many yearn for reunification (if we could persuade the TFTA to emigrate to Arabia..)

Among the elderly perhaps, since many of them still have families across the border or one of their parents originated from the North of the Peninsula before migrating Southwards. The young SoKos are at best indifferent and largely hostile to any reunification- chiefly because of economic reasons.

Let NoKo stew in its own juice,great if that wre to happen,but that juice is highly radioactive and Dear young un Kim,wants to export the very same product if sanctions against him are not lifted.Little China can do if Kim launches a missile strike against SoKo or Japan.Will "Godfather" Trump then unleash Tomahawks at Pyongyang?

Coming back to India,will we also face such Trump "initiatives" akin to Syria if we don't say "uncle Sam" if he tries to knock Indian and Paki heads in a Pax Americana over Kashmir? The abrupt about change in US diplomacy and stand on Kashmir-that it is a bilateral dispute between India and Pak,is alarming,especially as Trump has done b*gger all about Paki sponsorship of terror not just against India but around the world. WE simply have to weather the storm ,batten hatches and keep our powder dry,esp. a huge dev. and induction of genuine ICBMs on a war footing.

Question for the pro-Uncle brigade here at BRF - after this treachery in Syria, do you people still think we should be entering a strategic relationship with these people? Should we be entering into decades long arms contracts with them? Should we rely on American consistency and trustworthiness? Does anyone believe the Americans won't betray us at the first opportunity?

Anyways, it is possible the chemical (gas) attack was wrongly blamed on 'sad to justify t-hawking the airbase. So, it could be treachery.

With that said, a strategic relationship would mean both parties to be strategic. If not strategy is one side and relationship is on the side. This syrian attack doesn't mean we should not enter into strategic relationship with massa imo as long as we think strategically for our own benefit.

Treachery can also be stupidity of the mind if you think you wont get found out and so on.

The Syrian attack has nothing to do with us. And we should have a relationship with the US that is in our interests. The Chinese are itching to cut us down to size and we need all the help we can get from the US.

"The timing of the U.S. strike is remarkable. The Trump-Xi summit comes at a time of tremendous uncertainty in East Asia. The Chinese and U.S. presidents already had a rather long list of things to discuss: thwarting North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, negotiating the future of U.S.-China trade, not to mention the South China Sea and Taiwan. By launching the strike while Xi is in town, Trump may have added an another item to the list.

It is not yet clear when Trump decided to launch the strike, why he chose to hit the airfield in the early hours of the morning Friday, or which countries were, or were not, informed. Whatever the circumstances or rationale, the fact that Xi was photographed shaking Trump's hand and smiling at his declaration of “friendship” while the United States made a surprise military move is not going to be popular — at all.

Xi does not like surprises. Top Chinese leaders exist in a world where public appearances are tightly choreographed, the press is controlled and protocol is paramount. During the weeks of planning and negotiation that went into the Mar-a-Lago summit, every interaction and angle would have been discussed — from the handshake, to media availability, to the possibility of a rogue Trump tweet."

if z and p get onto some agreement, 11 is in trouble. Without that agreement, I am not sure z has the balls to hit 11 at this point because rest of the allies have become (at least look like) dhimmis. And z will have to bankroll the entire effort. so not happening imo.

Do any of you seriously believe the US is either going to war with China, or that they would help us if we get attacked? The same US that only looks out for its own narrow interests even to the point of staging fake WMD's, chemical attacks, and so on.

They'd just happily watch us get pounded and cut down to size, then offer to sell us a bunch of outdated weapons. The Americans wouldn't lift a finger. Are you people delusional?

Y. Kanan wrote:They'd just happily watch us get pounded and cut down to size, then offer to sell us a bunch of outdated weapons. The Americans wouldn't lift a finger. Are you people delusional?

Excellent point. Based on my pisko analysis of American mind, I can tell you, US China so called feuds are just artificial BS. Americans love Chinese slave labor, childless American couples love Chinese babies, and on the other side, Chinese deep down are as colonized in their minds towards whites as us SDREs if not more. As we all know, some kind of antagonistic foreign relationships are needed for the overall functioning of power brokers in US. Thats all there is to it.

On India, absolutely, except for useless glib talk, US wouldn't lift a finger to help us in any substantial way. In the event of a war with China or TSP, they may step in and prevent a complete annihilation should things turn nuke, but they will do that more out of their compunctions than anything else. And our experience with how US deals with TSP and its terror against India provide more than enough clues: While US has the wherewithal to make TSP grovel in front of it with a begging bowl, US has never used that leverage out of fear that us SDREs will then come out of the India TSP "South Asia" box. In containing India through TSP, both US and China are allies. And certainly both will not do anything to help India change the geo-political status quo: box India with TSP, with China/US as the hegemons.

Given the IQ level in the War Room, they may have decided that an SLCM strike on an airfield would be a great example to show PeeAllSee b4 NoKo meeting. 60 SLCMs was total overkill to zap an airbase with 7 1970s-model MiG-23s totally worth much less than one of those mijjiles in replacement cost. As for the nice arched hangars, they offered very little protection except from hail. Now they match the general architectural ambience of the rest of Syria, courtesy of the Moderate Terrorists and their ISIS soulmates.

The USN could just as easily have zapped Deal Ovelweight Reader's nuke/mijjile capability w/o breaking a sweat. Plus zapped the Palaces in Pyongyang and enabled any coup types to walk in over the rubble and finish off the survivors. Standoff attack from somewhere in the Pacific. A point that is certainly not lost on NoKo or their puppeteers.

And this is why Brahmos Mark V and its hypersonic brethren need to be mass-produced in desh in the 1000s.

nobody is really our friend. and none can tell who will side with who in 20 years, let alone 50.

we need to have the permanent ability to wipe off any country in the map or atleast cause it devastating damage to push it back 50 years.

track , chase and kill anything that comes within 2000km of our shores using a mix of space assets, ASBMs, subs and hypersonic missiles

this is exactly what the chinese are converging to and so should we. no need to box ourselves in as a mental midget using self-created "limits" on range and payload. so if a big hairy dirty 1MT device is best so be it, go ahead and test it. nothing will happen. everyone is jerking off at the prospect of dumping cheap capital here to get a slice of the 500 mil consuming class. another section looks at india as a solution to their overcapacity.

Y. Kanan wrote:They'd just happily watch us get pounded and cut down to size, then offer to sell us a bunch of outdated weapons. The Americans wouldn't lift a finger. Are you people delusional?

Excellent point. Based on my pisko analysis of American mind, I can tell you, US China so called feuds are just artificial BS. Americans love Chinese slave labor, childless American couples love Chinese babies, and on the other side, Chinese deep down are as colonized in their minds towards whites as us SDREs if not more. As we all know, some kind of antagonistic foreign relationships are needed for the overall functioning of power brokers in US. Thats all there is to it.

On India, absolutely, except for useless glib talk, US wouldn't lift a finger to help us in any substantial way. In the event of a war with China or TSP, they may step in and prevent a complete annihilation should things turn nuke, but they will do that more out of their compunctions than anything else. And our experience with how US deals with TSP and its terror against India provide more than enough clues: While US has the wherewithal to make TSP grovel in front of it with a begging bowl, US has never used that leverage out of fear that us SDREs will then come out of the India TSP "South Asia" box. In containing India through TSP, both US and China are allies. And certainly both will not do anything to help India change the geo-political status quo: box India with TSP, with China/US as the hegemons.

why is this line of thinking to link anything that massa might do for their own benefit with India? If massa wants to armtwist china, it would be for their own good, in this base some bargaining w.r.t their own international affairs, global perception positioning, z the stlongest narrative, etc.

We are still at a situation where we don'e "seem" to be an active player in international politics. We can't even get into NSG yet. US might help us only if it helps them more. Bery Zimple! No point to look at every action of massa action with - what do i get?

"They'd just happily watch us get pounded and cut down to size, then offer to sell us a bunch of outdated weapons. The Americans wouldn't lift a finger. Are you people delusional?"

Yes they would just watch because we are not allied. Question is would they do the same if Taiwan, Japan or SOKO were on the receiving end.

'Strategic independence' is not without cost. We found that out in 1962. Unless we have the means the backup our independence, expecting someone who is not allied to come to our assistance is delusional. It's what JLN tried to do. And still, the Globemasters kept rolling in.

If don't want an alliance with the US, we have two choices: cede ground to China or bulk up quickly and be prepared to make them pay a cost they can't afford even as they pound @**# out of us.

Oh!, and our Russian time-tested friends will do just the same. Watch and offer us the SU-35 and the Pak/FA.

Cosmo_R wrote:"They'd just happily watch us get pounded and cut down to size, then offer to sell us a bunch of outdated weapons. The Americans wouldn't lift a finger. Are you people delusional?"

Yes they would just watch because we are not allied. Question is would they do the same if Taiwan, Japan or SOKO were on the receiving end.

'Strategic independence' is not without cost. We found that out in 1962. Unless we have the means the backup our independence, expecting someone who is not allied to come to our assistance is delusional. It's what JLN tried to do. And still, the Globemasters kept rolling in.

If don't want an alliance with the US, we have two choices: cede ground to China or bulk up quickly and be prepared to make them pay a cost they can't afford even as they pound @**# out of us.

Oh!, and our Russian time-tested friends will do just the same. Watch and offer us the SU-35 and the Pak/FA.

Even if there was a notional desire on India's part to become "allied" with the US (as Pakistan had for over 60 years, and even achieved the status of MuNNA), it takes more than just that desire for the alliance to form and for it to be meaningful.

For want of a better word, there has to be a "fit" between the two parties. It may be common genetic or cultural background, or shared history of wars fought as adversaries or allies. I would claim US-Vietnam alliance would be more functional and successful than a US-India one.

US will come running to help Britain under NATO if Britain is attacked. Will they have the same enthusiasm for helping Turkey under the same NATO if Turkey is attacked? They are not even respecting Turkey's allergy to Kurds.

And we know how wonderful, from a paki pov, US-Paki alliance under CENTO, cold war and afghan war (v1, v2, b3) MuNNA status, etc. has been for Pakistan. When push came to shove. US never could commit to helping to save Pakistan from defeat at India's hands. Not even once.

How committed will the US be to the defense of SDRE Yindoo "allies?"

So, we shouldn't be overstating the value to India of alliance with the US.

RD I do like your analysis, may not agree with all of it but I dare say most of these things are discussed among the policy making american deep state.RD what is your response, let us put a likely scenario. India continues to be ruled by Modi/his BJP successosr in the same way for the next 2 decades. India,s GDP in PPP terms is now equal to the US and getting past it(2035-40), it,s military industrial capabilities are good and getting better, it has organised it,s society, it,s military now is capable of fighting and winning/or a draw against any army in it,s backyard. How does western powers stop India than and what can India do to not let that happen.

Our problem mainly one of the resolve. If we have the leadership of the present nature for two or three decades, then there will not be a problem. But if we are back to MMS/MQ type political leadership then we are going to be in a big soup.

China will soon have its war. Against whom? I am not sure. But fear it may be us. They can not fight anyone else. This war is to put a nation at its place and prove their middle kingdom status to themselves and the rest of Asia. The US is not going to support us if that happens. We are as always will be alone.

Gee! If one were to seek a classic example of "Dhoti-shiver" can one beat this? All that has happened is that someone bissed on someone else out in the MidEast, and here is the Best of Yindoostan bissing about Pakistani attack, Chinese attack.... Chalta Hain! V have been around for 141,000 years.

China is the one holding out its "CPEC" carrot to US [and its oil companies]., and further participation into OBOR.

Basically what China is trying to state is that they are Asia's masters and they hold the keys to Asia and working with them will provide the access. If there is something called arrogance., here it is here it is and here it is.

Will Trump/US take the bait?

Nikki must be just testing the waters since right after MEA curtly told her to keep quiet., Sushma gave this statement:

"Foreign minister Sushma Swaraj on Thursday said India had all the credentials to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council and four permanent members, the US, the UK, France and Russia, had extended support to its bid.

The fifth member, China, had "not publicly opposed it," she said. The minister said India was expecting that new members would have the same rights, including the veto power enjoyed by the existing permanent members."

Basically the race for the world leadership is on and there are only four contenders: US, Russia, India and China. And none of them have the wherewithal to go it alone. China is the weakest of the contender.

How will Putin view HU facilitating another Punch on Russia By Massa ? US will have to discard all of Its allies in Asia to join the ever treacherous China. Euros too will get the clue and go on their own way to please Papa Putin.

Precisely. Putin still holds a lot of cards w.r.t. Europe, despite massa's attempts to stymie it. Any overt moves by massa to China means Russia and India will be impacted, and we will make common cause. Some deft diplomacy by us to convince Russia to put pressure on EU energy supplies, which threaten NATO, could make the US think twice. Heck, the latter is more in Russia's interest than ours, considering that a belligerent China will threaten their southern flank and their access to warm water ports in the east. China has always eyed Siberia with its limitless gas supplies, so that tension will remain with Russia. The US has in the past collaborated with China against Russia, and has acted to block Russia from warm water in the Ukraine. So that is a tension filled relationship.

The way I see this playing out is, EU is the weakest bloc due to their own self-imposed pacifism (and economies not able to sustain their military power), and their attention diverted toward the refugee hordes threatening their way of life. No alternate energy supplies either. US has nothing to worry about in this game, thanks to fracking and a continental location with Canada/Mexico offering a 'strategic depth' if needed.

India will need to be deft in securing multiple energy sources, but we have some leverage in playing Iran against the Gulf states and getting supply from both, as we are doing today. Our supply lines are also simple and easy to protect, than say, China's. Plus excellent sunshine throughout the year helps a lot. Lastly, our workforce in the Gulf is a lever to be used against their cushioned existence.

China is simply paranoid, so will do something stupid which they can't regret later due to "loss of face" nonsense. The CPEC has actually reduced their plausible deniability options if they use Pakistan to do their dirty work. It's now an open knowledge that they are together in this, so Chinese targets are fair game when it comes to Paki provocations. Their energy supplies being held in a vice grip by us - Lakshadweep, Malacca, and to an extent PoK means they are insecure when it comes to us and put on a false face of bravado to not show it (Sun Tzu, etc). Sure, they can get energy from Russia and Central Asia, how much they'll get is up to Russia, as they won't want to give too much leverage to China. Russia also jealously guards its sphere of influence in the 'stans' bloc in Central Asia and will be loathe to give it up to China.

All these things mean that China will try to cosy up to the US to hedge their bets - how much they cosy up will indicate how threatened they feel and how much of US gonads are in their grip (trade). US will try to hedge its bets by trying to prop us up to stand up to China (throw some more visas to us, and take us on fool's errands like EMALS, CVN, etc.), while ensuring Pakistan gets a few scraps of meat to keep us distracted. But Pakistan is also a part of China, so that dynamic is more complex than before.

Russia is okay as long as they address demographics and keep their southern/eastern flanks in the Baltics and the Pacific open. EU is their captive customer for a long time to come. But they need us to keep China off Siberia and Central Asia.

^^"So, we shouldn't be overstating the value to India of alliance with the US."

I should have been clearer. If you're strong enough, you have 'strategic independence' and you don't 'need' any 'allies'

If you're not, you need friends with big sticks. Friends don't do things altruistically—they want compensation for mitigating your weakness. What is the price you're willing to pay?

We need to choose a path among these alternatives: acknowledge China's 'over-lordship' ; bulk up instead of dawdling; or seek an alliance.

Whether under an alliance, the US comes to the rescue of SDREs etc., is why I highlighted the Japan, SOKO and Taiwan issue. If the US won't stand behind them, then an alliance with the US is worthless.